Supervisors review prioritized county capital projects for potential state funding

County supervisors and planning staff presented a prioritized list of capital projects that they say could support economic growth and asked the Board of Supervisors to confirm priorities before sending the list to the state budget office.

Planning staff and a small working group reviewed candidate projects that include major sewer improvements in an industrial service area, infrastructure work in the Town of Salem and water-system work in Whitehall. The group’s stated criteria emphasized projects that are “ready to go” and that have demonstrable economic impact; a planning staff member said one large sewer project was prioritized highest because of its broad service and potential industrial benefit.

The county relayed that the state’s budget director described a new statewide program as “non-competitive” in language the director used and said the state intends to reduce requirements that previously barred some applicants. County staff said the state asked for specific capital projects that lead to economic growth so state staff could shape the program; but county respondents stressed that the program’s language in the budget is “very, very vague” and that there are no guarantees about funding levels or award criteria.

What was approved: supervisors agreed to submit the prioritized list to the state and to continue discussions. The county noted the statewide program reportedly has $100 million available statewide, but several supervisors cautioned that the county’s chances of receiving a large share are uncertain. One supervisor said the priority list groups the projects to create synergies and that the state might ask the county to select a single project among the top priorities.

Why it matters: supervisors said infrastructure gaps—especially sewer and water—constrain local business retention and expansion. Planning staff said some towns have lost businesses because of infrastructure limitations and that capital investment could unlock job-creating projects. The county emphasized transparency in vetting the list: the small group consolidated projects sent by supervisors and returned the list to the full board for review before submission.

Discussion vs. decision: this agenda item resulted in a direction to transmit the prioritized capital-project list to the state for consideration; it was not a guarantee of funding. Supervisors asked staff to continue follow-up meetings with the state budget office and to prepare for further guidance if the state asks the county to pare the list.

Next steps: county staff and supervisors expect additional conversations with the state budget office and said they will track whether the state program channels money to county capital projects or to other competitive grant streams.